Following-up the news of the “25th January” revolution in Egypt, I was shocked by the term “loyalty “this term means that version of loyalty to President Mubarak. Egypt did out recognize that term along its history for many reasons, so I was surprised.

Both terms of “loyalty” and " opposition” are well known in Lebanon where the Lebanese press began to describe people who are pro-team by “loyalists” and who are opposed to them by “the opposed “. Both loyalists and opposed have contributed to the destruction of Lebanon and caused several conflicts that still going on till today.

Due to the unusual terms of " loyalty and opposition “, and also because most of the Arab countries are free from such comparison that divides its people into two opposed categories even with the presence of doctrines and rules; I expected that the journalist who wrote ale out these event was Lebanese working for a Lebanese newspaper, or at least a Lebanese journalist working for a newspaper in one of the Gulf Arab countries.

I was really upset when I found the term “loyalty “is used to describe the supporters of the president Mubarak. May be because the word “loyalty " reminds me with what happened in Lebanon of divisions and civil was that made the Lebanese people supper for along time till now . The word loyalty itself is a word of a good standing, but for some people it means the confiscation of the others and fighting them. In some cases, the word loyalty is used to express the loyalty to some elements outside the homeland.

I was upset because Egypt over its long history recognized different terms such as ; Muslims and Christians , rich and poor , honest and thieves , the majority possess 60 % of the wealth and a minority crushed can not find a living , But the Egyptian people never recognized the terms of pro-government and anti-government .

Perhaps the reason was the absence of real opposition that suggests programs and approaches, them there were no supporters for such movements. During the last 30 years, the opposition movement in Egypt was a mere a former activity practiced by parties, but this activity never practiced on a real ground.

The evidence is that most citizens do not even know the names of the political parties, let alone their program plans and political visions. The well known parties are only : wafd party , National progressive Unionist party , and El-Ghad party among 19 parties authorized to operate by the committee of parties .Also perhaps the reason lies in the dominance of the ruling party through many years on the Egyptian political life .

There was nothing to say about “the opinion and the opposite opinions “. There was always only one authority that carries on whatever they want, and if there was another view published in newspapers or private media, it would be completely ignored.

I read some news about the Egyptian actress Ghada Abdul Razek that she decided not to deal with the director Khaled Yousif, Do you know why?

Because Khaled Yousif supports the protests calling for freedom and reformation, while Ghada Abdul Razek supports the president Mubarak. Them the difference of their opinions has thus become a cause discord and boycott.

In that Wednesday, most of the gathering demonstrators in Al-Tahrir square were eased by the president's speech in which he promised to take the steps towards reformation. In the same time, the demonstrators were surprised by a set of NDP (National Democratic Party) supporters attacking them with horses, Camels and stones. This confrontation resulted in eleven people were killed. I do not know who is responsible for such massacre; the government denied any kind of relation to it and promised to investigate the event. But the NDP supporters are still a cased of being responsible of what had happened at that day.

This incident is not dangerous just because it is a criminal against innocent demonstrators, but it also shows us the how of some people think, for such people, the difference of opinions was a good justification not only to attack the other but also to kill and destroy any one who adopt another opinion.

Most of the Egyptian people rejected the government policy, so there were no categories or trends that can be differentiate between. But in many times the NDP supporters actually were making a good use of the ruling system more than being mere supporters for its favor.

The difference of opinions is a natural phenomenon, and it can't be a reason of personal animosity.

Difference is a law of nature and human beings, if you like eating meat but I don’t, it is not a good reason to justify attacking me and trying to kill me just because I don’t like what you do.

But the term of loyalty, this dangerous term, should be only used for the homeland, not for a category or another. We all adopt different opinion but when we are to support some thing, it must be our home not any thing else.

Although this word “loyalty” bothers me, I'm pleased to discuss it now because it alerts us about what may happen in the future.

It warns us from a disaster that about to happen especially in the light of the political pluralism in the few days and also the long waited constitutional reforms that will produce no doubt significant political changes.

There will be several parties, and we will see for the first time presidential candidates from all classes of people, some of them are protesters, some of the official institutions, and many others from independents.

As a result there will be groups of protesters and supporters for this trend or that.

So, we should pay attention so as not to turn the democratic practice into hostility between two groups or more. And we shouldn't classify the political forces into the limited terms of “pro “and “against “.

Egypt, God willing, is about to practice the true democracy and a new political system. So, we must be prepared from now to make the foundations of the moral and ethical rules, and the unwritten conventions for the next phase.

The difference of opinions must be emphasized that it doesn’t mean hostility and hatred and the accusations against the others. Every one has the right to choose what he wants and what to believe, but loyalty must be the loyalty to the home and always.